It's like what Hal was saying in his article on the Home Page: word gets out among the players regarding the good places to play and bad places. Reinsdorf has jacked the players around long enough with his "creative" contracts that most of them will never play for the Sox. Exactly like what happened to the Bulls. Hmm, what a coincidence we're talking about the same owner.

Kilroy

12-09-2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by michned
It's like what Hal was saying in his article on the Home Page: word gets out among the players regarding the good places to play and bad places. Reinsdorf has jacked the players around long enough with his "creative" contracts that most of them will never play for the Sox. Exactly like what happened to the Bulls. Hmm, what a coincidence we're talking about the same owner.

If the Sox had ponied up 4 years 48 mil, Colon would have signed here. End of story. If the Sox had offered that and he turned it down to play somewhere else, I might buy into what you're saying, but bottom line is that players will go where the money is. That's why the Sox is a bad place to play, because the funds are limited.

Colon was really in the drivers seat. He had arbitration to fall back on. All he had to do was wait and see what kind of offers he could drum up.

Rocky Soprano

12-09-2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by michned
It's like what Hal was saying in his article on the Home Page: word gets out among the players regarding the good places to play and bad places. Reinsdorf has jacked the players around long enough with his "creative" contracts that most of them will never play for the Sox. Exactly like what happened to the Bulls. Hmm, what a coincidence we're talking about the same owner.

I agree up to a point. I think that Reinsdorf has to play a part in it in how he treats the players but the bigger picture is that he is cheap. Thats why players dont want to play for the Sox.

dougs78

12-09-2003, 09:22 AM

I think all of you guys are somewhat right. Kilroy has a point, that if we suddnely began paying big contracts we'd have absolutely no problem drawing free agents, or retaining our players.

But also I think that as michned says, the players realize that the payroll situation in Chicago is tenuous at best. Even if it is only a minor, minor part of their decision process they must be thinking that, "hmm, even if I sign this decent contract with the Sox, they aren't going to be able to sign anyone else to make this a competitive team, and then they'll want to trade me because I make too much money."

The bottom line is that there are a million reasons why FA's sign with the teams they do. However, after the pure financial end of it, I think having a chance to play in a system that makes a commitment to winning and has great attendance definitely is attractive. I think Guardado is a great example of that. He's willing to take less money, and a setup role, to pitch for a team like Seattle rather than go to the Sox.

Irishlawyer

12-09-2003, 09:31 AM

First, you must take what the Cubune says with a grain of salt. Second, Reinsdorf LIKES IT the way he has it with players/agents in that only the most desperate will deal with him and he knows he has them by the balls. The guy plays dirty pool. The Sox suffer and he takes buckets full of money to the bank. Nothing new here.

idseer

12-09-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Irishlawyer
First, you must take what the Cubune says with a grain of salt. Second, Reinsdorf LIKES IT the way he has it with players/agents in that only the most desperate will deal with him and he knows he has them by the balls. The guy plays dirty pool. The Sox suffer and he takes buckets full of money to the bank. Nothing new here.

there's something inherently wrong with this idea. desperate in what way? if you mean nobody else wants them then ok. and having the weakest players in the game by the balls doesn't mean much now does it?

Tekijawa

12-09-2003, 10:40 AM

I saw the Subject line on this thread and got a little excited, I though we might have Picked up a "Defensive" Second baseman!

Procol Harum

12-09-2003, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by Tekijawa
I saw the Subject line on this thread and got a little excited, I though we might have Picked up a "Defensive" Second baseman!

LOL!!!

SSN721

12-09-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Kilroy
If the Sox had ponied up 4 years 48 mil, Colon would have signed here. End of story. If the Sox had offered that and he turned it down to play somewhere else, I might buy into what you're saying, but bottom line is that players will go where the money is. That's why the Sox is a bad place to play, because the funds are limited.

Colon was really in the drivers seat. He had arbitration to fall back on. All he had to do was wait and see what kind of offers he could drum up.

I completely agree, he was following the money and certainly would have stayed here if we offered him that, even if a lot of it was deferred I think. Why sign here when you can go somewhere else for another guaranteed year at the same salary? He is being well overpaid as it is. DOnt think he will stay the "inning eater" he is now for the next for years, not with a fat contract and not much reason to stay in shape.

Lip Man 1

12-09-2003, 01:58 PM

Folks:

It's like I said on another thread. As long as the Sox insist on doing things "their way," while the overwhelming majority of teams are doing it another way (all doing basically the same thing), the Sox will stay behind the eight ball.

The posts about the Sox only getting players that nobody else wants dovetails nicely with what I posted months ago, that players play for the Sox only if they have to (i.e. no place else to go or via trade)

For things to change the entire atmosphere and relationship between the organization and players and their agents has to change.

Right now it to confrontational and two one sided.

Lip

joecrede

12-09-2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

It's like I said on another thread. As long as the Sox insist on doing things "their way," while the overwhelming majority of teams are doing it another way (all doing basically the same thing), the Sox will stay behind the eight ball.

What do you mean? Specifics.

poorme

12-09-2003, 03:33 PM

Players have always spurned the Sox. I recall Larry Himes trying to convince aging veterans like Keith Hernandez, Buddy Bell, and Willie Randolph to come to the South Side. They all said, "no thanks." That wasn't such a bad thing since those guys were way over the (donnie) hill.

Kilroy

12-09-2003, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Folks:

It's like I said on another thread. As long as the Sox insist on doing things "their way," while the overwhelming majority of teams are doing it another way (all doing basically the same thing), the Sox will stay behind the eight ball.

I can't agree or disagree because I'm not sure what you mean by "their way" and "another way".

As for players that just don't want to come here, I can only think of one -- Schilling -- who said they wouldn't play here.

StillMissOzzie

12-09-2003, 05:20 PM

I'm just tired of this team making lowball offers that they can probably safely assume will be rejected, and then throwing their hands in the air and saying, "We tried!"

SMO
:angry:

washington

12-09-2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
I'm just tired of this team making lowball offers that they can probably safely assume will be rejected, and then throwing their hands in the air and saying, "We tried!"

Like they did with Robin Ventura and others. It's one of the many ways that the Reinsdorf regieme enjoys insulting the intelligence of Sox fans. The team's utter lack of any ability at public relations shines through again.

Lip Man 1

12-09-2003, 10:17 PM

Joe;

Perhaps this column will explain better what I mean. It's from early 2002 but things haven't changed all that much for the Sox so the main points are still valid in my opinion:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=151

It's called "Going Nowhere Fast?"

Lip

joecrede

12-09-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe;

Perhaps this column will explain better what I mean. It's from early 2002 but things haven't changed all that much for the Sox so the main points are still valid in my opinion:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=2&id=151

It's called "Going Nowhere Fast?"

Lip

Lip,

Read the article. Your biggest gripes about Reinsdorf are that he won't offer pitchers more than two-year contracts and that he refuses to deal with Boras.

The Sox did offer Colon a three-year deal. The Angels offered four and Colon signed with them. You'll be able to count the number of pitchers who receive four-year deals on one hand.

What the Angels are doing might look good right now (heard Bruce Levine on ESPN Radio say they offered Guerrero 5y/$75M), but these signings don't come without a downside. In an effort to improve their team this year, they have locked themselves into contracts that might not look too good in a year. Contracts that they will be stuck with. Look no further than the Rangers with Chan-Ho Park and to a lesser extent Rodriguez or the Phillies with Thome and Burrelle.

As far as the Sox refusing to deal with Boras clients, it's more that they haven't been willing to pay what Boras is asking for. The landscape of baseball has changed drastically since you wrote that article, Boras will have to adjust to the market or he'll lose clients

Lip Man 1

12-10-2003, 01:24 AM

Joe:

You asked what I meant by the Sox doing things differently from other clubs.

Fact, other clubs deal with Boras (like him or not because he controls about 150 players), the Sox don't...

Fact, other clubs give out long term contracts to pitchers (for example...the Angels inked Colon for four years, Peter Gammons reported tonight the A's are re-signing Foulke for four years, the Yankees signed Mussina for longer then three years, ditto the D-backs with Randy Johnson), the Sox don't and while it may be smart business it puts the Sox in a hole because FA pitchers will not deal with them. Which means to get pitching the Sox have to trade for it. Which weakens other positions on the team. Granted it may only be a select number of pitchers getting those kind of deals but outside of Jamie Navarro it's been zero for the Sox.

Fact the Sox on at least two occasions have tried to talk about contracts with players without their representatives present. Again it might be good business but it sets a bad example and the word does get out.

If the Sox get to a World Series this season, I'll have to withdraw my statement because obviously their way worked. For the past 22 years though it hasn't.

We'll see.

Lip

miker

12-10-2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
If the Sox get to a World Series this season, I'll have to withdraw my statement because obviously their way worked. For the past 22 years though it hasn't.

Wow! Talk about going out on a limb...

Lip Man 1

12-10-2003, 12:27 PM

Miker:

What do you want me to say? That I think the Sox can get to the series with the current policies?

I was trying to be courteous to those who feel being fiscally responsible is the right thing to do. Frankly I don't believe that for a nanosecond but again in the spirit of co orperation and in trying to be more friendly I modified my statement to include them.

If you want I can tell them to FO with that belief but I don't think that's good for the board in total.

Lip

joecrede

12-10-2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

You asked what I meant by the Sox doing things differently from other clubs.

Fact, other clubs deal with Boras (like him or not because he controls about 150 players), the Sox don't...

150 players? I'd like verification of that.

How many Boras clients have World Series rings in the last five years? To my knowledge, none in the last two years. I-Rod, who is now being represented by Boras was being repped by Jeff Moorad when he signed with the Marlins last year.

Fact, other clubs give out long term contracts to pitchers (for example...the Angels inked Colon for four years, Peter Gammons reported tonight the A's are re-signing Foulke for four years, the Yankees signed Mussina for longer then three years, ditto the D-backs with Randy Johnson), the Sox don't and while it may be smart business it puts the Sox in a hole because FA pitchers will not deal with them. Which means to get pitching the Sox have to trade for it. Which weakens other positions on the team. Granted it may only be a select number of pitchers getting those kind of deals but outside of Jamie Navarro it's been zero for the Sox.

Discounting the Yankees because they can outbid everyone, off the top of my head, the Sox have lost out on pitchers, Colon, Park, Neagle, Hampton.

Fact the Sox on at least two occasions have tried to talk about contracts with players without their representatives present. Again it might be good business but it sets a bad example and the word does get out. .

Mountain out of a molehill here Lip.

If the Sox get to a World Series this season, I'll have to withdraw my statement because obviously their way worked. For the past 22 years though it hasn't.

We'll see.

Lip

The Rangers do business pretty much as you've layed out here ...

Lip Man 1

12-10-2003, 05:37 PM

Joe:

At least the Rangers give their fans some kind of hope. The Sox organization simply refuses to bend at all from what they consider right and that's fine IF they had a track record of success. In my opinion they do not.

They rely on "hope" and "luck" when it comes to winning. Other organizations expect to win. I don't think White Sox fans should be held up as an example of having to pay outrageous prices to see mediocrity.

Example...the last six season COMBINED. The average Sox seasonal record is 83-79. Can you get more mediocre? (and remember they won 95 games in 2000)

I guess all I'm saying is that I'm getting very tired of having to rely on "luck." We haven't had much of it the past 44 seasons have we? I'd just like to increase the odds of winning once before I drop dead. I'm 48.

Lip

Lip Man 1

12-10-2003, 05:41 PM

Joe:

Sorry I can't give you verification on Boras. All I remember is reading a story on him saying he's the most powerful agent in the game controlling well over 125 clients including most of the top pitchers in baseball.

Regardless of if he controls 100 or 170 players that's a hell of a lot of players to not have a chance of getting simply because the owner doesn't personally care for him. Is that making a sound business decision?

You have to explore all avenues at acquiring talent, at least that's what winning clubs do, and again their are a number of teams that seem to have no difficulty with Boras. It's simply business. reinsdorf makes it personal and that hurts the Sox by limiting their options.

Lip

washington

12-10-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Regardless of if he controls 100 or 170 players that's a hell of a lot of players to not have a chance of getting simply because the owner doesn't personally care for him..

To me, Reinsdorf acting out his grudges is just another in a long, long list of things that are more important to him than fielding a championship-caliber team.

dickallen15

12-10-2003, 05:50 PM

Let's make one thing clear. Reinsdorf has NEVER said he wouldn't sign or negotiate with a player represented by Boras. It was Ron Schueler who made that decision. He is gone, probably never to be a GM again. I believe Crede is represented by Boras, and Kenny Williams made inquiries about at least 2 more Boras clients in the last 3 years, ARod and Maddux. The White Sox would prefer, as would probably every other club, that Boras wasn't representing anyone, but to say they would not consider signing players because he represents them is not accurate.

dickallen15

12-10-2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Joe:

At least the Rangers give their fans some kind of hope. The Sox organization simply refuses to bend at all from what they consider right and that's fine IF they had a track record of success. In my opinion they do not.

They rely on "hope" and "luck" when it comes to winning. Other organizations expect to win. I don't think White Sox fans should be held up as an example of having to pay outrageous prices to see mediocrity.

Example...the last six season COMBINED. The average Sox seasonal record is 83-79. Can you get more mediocre? (and remember they won 95 games in 2000)

I guess all I'm saying is that I'm getting very tired of having to rely on "luck." We haven't had much of it the past 44 seasons have we? I'd just like to increase the odds of winning once before I drop dead. I'm 48.

Lip

What kind of hope are the Rangers giving their fans, that the White Sox aren't giving theirs? Last time I checked the Rangers haven't won a World Series. The last 3 years, their season has been over in May. The biggest signing in the history of the sport is about to skip town, for a guy Boston couldn't give away. They have signed some people that will have them hamstruck for years.Their premium ticket prices are almost double the White Sox. Believe me, for all the complaining you do about Reinsdorf, if you were a Ranger fan, it would even be worse.

Lip Man 1

12-11-2003, 02:13 AM

Dick:

I haven't looked this up but haven't the Rangers made the playoffs more times then the Sox the past ten years?

Lip

dickallen15

12-11-2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Dick:

I haven't looked this up but haven't the Rangers made the playoffs more times then the Sox the past ten years?

Lip

If they have, they were eliminated in the first round every time just like the White Sox. I thought the World Series is what you count, not playoff appearances.They then spent a boat load of money and have finished last 3 years in a row, something I don't believe the White Sox have done probably ever. Now their owner is cutting payroll significantly. They have no hope.